What are your unpopular opinions?
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Excellent JulianPHMidengined..........I think we all know the bulls
t technicality that the HMRC use to justify it. I think from me being able to read, that most people are objecting to it because it's bloody ridiculous and unfair.Of course the rule that is being cited is understood - Money is not taxed. Hence the fact I don't feel that I should earn 10 quid, pay 4 quid to tax man............then give my remaining 6 quid to window cleaner and he pays between another 1.20 and 2.40..............on that 6 quid. I'm sure the Government would want him to charge me VAT on that 6 quid too.
It's a joke - and that's why I have no issue with having been forced to pay my 40% - that when I pass that money downstream, there is no subsequent tax to pay. Whether to my window cleaner, or my kids upon my death.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Those opportunities being transactions. If you owned your own home outright, grew your own food, drunk your own rainwater, weren't connected to mains power, gas, water etc, didn't smoke, drink or run a car, And lived off previous savings, you'd pay very little tax. Council tax, that's about it. It's when you venture into the world and do stuff, even die, that when you get taxed. anonymous said:
[redacted]
I have no objection to you being insane and allowed internet access at the same time, but you are abusing it.You appear to be so confused with the whole transaction/money issue that you have lost complete sight as to what is being taxed. Money!
Paying a toll to cross a bridge or access a road is a transactional tax.
Paying the government to 20% to buy a tampon is not.
All taxation occurs at a point when it can be clearly defined. That does not mean the tax is levied on the transaction, it is the information the transaction provides that creates any tax liability.
Go on, let's have some fun - give me a tax that is not based on money?
The Selfish Gene said:
Excellent JulianPH
Midengined..........I think we all know the bullst technicality that the HMRC use to justify it. I think from me being able to read, that most people are objecting to it because it's bloody ridiculous and unfair.
Of course the rule that is being cited is understood - Money is not taxed. Hence the fact I don't feel that I should earn 10 quid, pay 4 quid to tax man............then give my remaining 6 quid to window cleaner and he pays between another 1.20 and 2.40..............on that 6 quid. I'm sure the Government would want him to charge me VAT on that 6 quid too.
It's a joke - and that's why I have no issue with having been forced to pay my 40% - that when I pass that money downstream, there is no subsequent tax to pay. Whether to my window cleaner, or my kids upon my death.
Cheers mate! Midengined..........I think we all know the bulls
t technicality that the HMRC use to justify it. I think from me being able to read, that most people are objecting to it because it's bloody ridiculous and unfair.Of course the rule that is being cited is understood - Money is not taxed. Hence the fact I don't feel that I should earn 10 quid, pay 4 quid to tax man............then give my remaining 6 quid to window cleaner and he pays between another 1.20 and 2.40..............on that 6 quid. I'm sure the Government would want him to charge me VAT on that 6 quid too.
It's a joke - and that's why I have no issue with having been forced to pay my 40% - that when I pass that money downstream, there is no subsequent tax to pay. Whether to my window cleaner, or my kids upon my death.
The Selfish Gene said:
Countdown said:
l354uge said:
Land rover defenders are awful, awful cars. ...
Toyota landcruisers are better in every respect.If Kia can offer a 7 year warranty and JLR can't then their engineers need to be spanked with a large cactus.
Countdown said:
The Selfish Gene said:
Countdown said:
l354uge said:
Land rover defenders are awful, awful cars. ...
Toyota landcruisers are better in every respect.If Kia can offer a 7 year warranty and JLR can't then their engineers need to be spanked with a large cactus.
also - I'm only 5'10'' so it's only a semi hunchback!
I can't explain it, I know it's irrational. I think it just reminds me of a tonker truck when I was a kid.
yonex said:
F1 is one of the most boring forms of motorsport.
I wouldn't say that was unpopular. Maybe on here, but I agree.Also, Lewis Hamilton is a prick. But I doubt thats unpopular either.
And another one: An FN2 Civic Type-R is quite a good car
Edited by TameRacingDriver on Thursday 22 March 17:11
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think it is you that does not understand. I gave you examples of a transaction tax, you were unable to see the difference.I have no objection with waiting for you to grow up, just please stop telling everyone else they are wrong whilst you do so.
So, once again, (I ask) can you do this? It seems not.
Countdown said:
Sportsmen (regardless of whether they are male or female) should be paid what the market says they are worth. Gender shouldn't come into it.
on that note, football and rugby should be banned from school PE.crap pointless sports.
should have running, athletics(some), obstacle courses, orienteering, swimming and such activities that actually benefit children.
Efbe said:
on that note, football and rugby should be banned from school PE.
crap pointless sports.
should have running, athletics(some), obstacle courses, orienteering, swimming and such activities that actually benefit children.
Yes, let’s get rid of all team sports, no benefit to be had there? Have you had to read a map lately? crap pointless sports.
should have running, athletics(some), obstacle courses, orienteering, swimming and such activities that actually benefit children.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff